D&D 5E Can your Druids wear metal armor?

[Charlaquin]

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I performed my due diligence by skimming past threads on the topic and the faction advancing the "player agency" argument does so generally with an abundance of exaggeration.

For example, the game isn't controlling your character's thoughts.

It is if it’s saying what my character will or won’t do. That should be my character’s (and therefore my) decision to make, not the book’s.

 

[Laurefindel]

It is the rule!

Heh, it is the misinterpreters who are turning the word "will" into something crazy!

Huh, call me crazy, but I’d think that when it says that a druid chooses not to wear metal armor, it supersedes any training that the druid might or might not have before its « druidhood ». That’s how taboos work.

If you embrace a religion/spiritual belief that says « no dressing in white after Labor Day » , it doesn’t matter if you did it before. Even if you used to wear white all year long, once you commit to this religion, you stop wearing white after Labor Day.

 

[Maxperson]

If a DM is choosing a setting where a particular Druid society considers "being defended by metal" to be a "taboo", a player can mechanically violate this taboo without any consequence. However, to do so might annoy, frighten, or anger other members of this Druid society.

Other way around. The taboo is written into the PHB class in the language used in the proficiency area. The DM has to choose a setting where it's not present.

The Druid mechanical rules still dont supply proficiency with metal armor, but a character that gets it elsewhere can violate the Druid taboo and use the metal armor normally.

Except that they do.

"Light armor, medium armor, shields (druids will not wear armor or use shields made of metal)"

Note how there is no limitation to the medium armor proficiency. None. It simply says, "medium armor." and then moves on to shields. That gives them proficiency with ALL medium armor. The parentheses at the end doesn't change that. It simply states that druids will choose not to wear metal armor and metal shields, which as it is written, is a choice based on druidic preferences.

 

[mrpopstar]

But again, that only applies if the player wants to change the story of the druid class to get rid of the taboo. If the druid simply feels that it's necessary in this instance to wear armor as an exception, the story involving the taboo hasn't changed, so there's no requirement to talk to the DM first.

If the player must, I guess.


Thankfully "my druid wears metal armor because reasons" is something I've never had to navigate as a Dungeon Master.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It is if it’s saying what my character will or won’t do. That should be my character’s (and therefore my) decision to make, not the book’s.

But you had that decision at the character creation. You willingly signed up for being non-metal wearer.

I think this relates to discussions about renegade clerics and paladins and such that we had a while ago (I don't remember if you participated.) Many classes assume certain amount of fluff, and this might require certain sort of behaviour on part of the character. Wizards study spellbooks, clerics pray to their gods. And there is no clear rules what happens if a player decides to go against that fluff. Generally the game just assumes that the player chose to be OK with the fluff in the character creations and not to do that. But what happens if a cleric breaks all the sacred tenets of their faith, curses their god and burns down their temple? Depends on metaphysics, but I think in many setting they might be an ex cleric. And the rules really do not answer how to deal with this. Which is not to say this sort of storylines cannot be played, it just requires the GM making stuff up.

 

[mrpopstar]

It is if it’s saying what my character will or won’t do. That should be my character’s (and therefore my) decision to make, not the book’s.

Which is an argument based on principle, predicated on semantics.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree. The restriction is justified by the prohibitions outlined in the customs of druidry (as defined by D&D), but druids won't go to hell for rocking some dope elven chainmail. Heh

But that could in fact be the reason.

(At a party 25,000 years ago)

Druid: "Finally my time has come. I've been invited to the annual Gods' Bash. What should I wear? I know! I got this new set of shiny magical plate mail. That should make an impression."

(A few days later) said in Sponge Bob narrator voice.

Druid: "I'm so happy! I've met Torm, Sune, Apollo and Thor. I can't wait to see who I run into next."

A drunk Dionysus: hic "Hi. Who are you and what is that you're wearing?"

Druid: "My name is Thistle Thornbush and this is my new armor. Do you like it?"

A drunk Dionysus: "It's, um, very nice, but you do know that if a druid wears metal armor he'll be taken to Hell and tortured forever when he dies, right?"

Druid: (a look of horror comes across the druid's face) "Excuse me! I have to go!"

(later that night)

A drunk Dionysus: "Hey Demeter, you'll never guess what I told one of your druids. snicker I told him that druids who wear metal armor go to Hell."

(A drunk Dionysus and Demeter fall to the ground laughing hysterically.)

And that ladies in gentlemen, is why druids won't wear metal armor.

 

[Charlaquin]

But you had that decision at the character creation. You willingly signed up for being non-metal wearer.

And if it said I “can’t” wear metal armor, that would be fine (if still incomplete.) If it said I lose my class if I wear metal armor, then it would be a complete rule. As it’s written, it’s just a restriction on how I’m allowed to play my own character.

I think this relates to discussions about renegade clerics and paladins and such that we had a while ago (I don't remember if you participated.) Many classes assume certain amount of fluff, and this might require certain sort of behaviour on part of the character. Wizards study spellbooks, clerics pray to their gods. And there is no clear rules what happens if a player decides to go against that fluff.

But these are things a character of these classes generally do, nor things they ”won’t” do. The only other class that has anything remotely like such a restriction is the Paladin, and rather than saying the Paladin “won’t” break their oath, it says what happens if they do. In this way, it maintains the player’s agency by giving them the option to make that choice and face the consequences.

 

[Maxperson]

Heh, it is the misinterpreters who are turning the word "will" into something crazy!

Yes. Yes it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which is an argument based on principle, predicated on semantics.

Based on principle? Yes. Predicated ok semantics? I disagree.